Thank you for the Tae Kyon videos. very interesting , even enlightening.

It started some toughts in fact... especially in regard of the disputed influence of Tae Kyon in the birth of Taekwon-Do:

I started learning Taekwon-Do in 1974. From the very start, I learned to strike and parry with the same explosive (tuuung!) way as portrayed and explained by that master: total relaxation with complete muscular contraction only at the moment of impact in perfect synchronisation with the shift of body weight.

In 1981, the sinewave movement was defined along with more insistence on specific breathing control, all to amplify and coordinate this.

I was told however that all of this wasn't the way it has been taught before 1970's, that before the dissociation with the Korean government, it was more karate-like (full tenseness and more pronounced limb-arming and hip rotations).

So I wonder; was this:

- The result of serious study to ''return to the source'' (Tae Kyon and/or Korean way of fighting)?

- a more openly assumed fundamental principle momentarily occulted by the early Japanese influence?

- a coincidental developement along parallel lines (reinventing the wheel) following the scientific research done by the masters over the last decades?

- A combination of some or all of those factors?

One thing I am sure: the way the Tae Kyon master strikes and describe the strikes is what I do have learned... and I never learned any Tae Kyon.

- The result of serious study to ''return to the source'' (Tae Kyon and/or Korean way of fighting)?

In order to go back to the source you are assuming that the people of the Ohdokwan, more specificly Gen. Choi, learned Taekkyon. To this date there is not hardcore evidence that Choi ever learned Taekkyon, outside of him stating that he did.

Originally Posted by odojang

- a more openly assumed fundamental principle momentarily occulted by the early Japanese influence?

Why would it be occulted by Japanese influence? Keep in mind that Ohdokwan is Japanase Shotokan. So if anything it wouldn't have been occulted. Japanese would have been the major influence of it.

Originally Posted by odojang

- a coincidental developement along parallel lines (reinventing the wheel) following the scientific research done by the masters over the last decades?

Isn't it always that way? I would say yes, this is nothing more that putting what already existed into scientific terms. Sort of like debunking the mysticism of chi with scientific explaination. (Sorry the Chi-balls don't really exist........and neither does Santa)

Originally Posted by odojang

One thing I am sure: the way the Tae Kyon master strikes and describe the strikes is what I do have learned... and I never learned any Tae Kyon.

Still hoping for further enlightenment...

Of course, I learned very similar principles as well and never studied Taekkyon. These principles are inhert in all martial arts.

Jeremy M. Talbott

Originally Posted by Phrost

"Bullshido isn't just a place to hang out when you're browsing the net. We really are trying to accomplish something fucking extraordinary here that nobody's ever had the balls to do before."

Originally Posted by D.Murray

"Which is better, to learn the truth, or to enjoy the illusion of being right when you are not?"

Originally Posted by hangooknamja88

My definition of Ki is our energy. it's rather hard to explain it in words. It's not some mystical type of energy like white people...

'' In order to go back to the source you are assuming that the people of the Ohdokwan, more specificly Gen. Choi, learned Taekkyon. To this date there is not hardcore evidence that Choi ever learned Taekkyon, outside of him stating that he did.''

I agree. However, the similarities are striking. I studied also a number of Karate-Do styles over the years, including Shotokan; none of them ever came close to what I learned in Taekwon-Do as much as what I saw in those Taekyon videos.

'' Why would it be occulted by Japanese influence? Keep in mind that Ohdokwan is Japanase Shotokan. So if anything it wouldn't have been occulted. Japanese would have been the major influence of it.''

Why or how, I don't know. That' why I asked. I can only wonder at the similitude between to arts that so many claim unrelated, when the same people so easily relate Taekwon-Do with Karate-Do where the differences are much more striking.
This is where I disagree. There is no denying that Shotokan Karate-Do is at the roots of Taekwon-Do. Serious historical sources support the fact that Taekwon-Do started out pretty close to what Karate-Do was and still is.
However, the decades of R&D in the Taekwon-Do I have learned has brought it significantly far away from it's original roots as to become definitely something else.
I know first hand because I studied Karate for over 5 years and Shotokan style the most (about 2 years). Even the similar techniques are not done at all the same way because of different principles of power, methods of training and approach to combat. I still have friends in Karate-Do and we always have a keen interest to compare our important differences among the few similitudes we still have.
I also trained in Olympic TKD for 3 years (just as it became Olympic). There indeed I found the same thing as I learned in Karate (techniques, execution, power principles), albeit some very minor differences. On that account I would agree with your assessment. But, as far as I know, the Oh Do Kwan school was not at the roots of Kukkiwon style.
However, I cannot say I am familiar with the old Oh Do Kwan school. General Choi never reffered to his original Oh Do Kwan when he talked of Taekwon-Do in the last 30 years of his life, each time I met him. He called his style Chang Hon (his pen name). That may explain your perception as well as mine: we are not talking about the same style.
Again, I immediately recognized what I have learned in the Taekyon segment, much more than I ever did when studying Karate-Do.
Fact is, I can't count how many times I had to discuss/explain/disagree/shut-my-mouth about this and that technique with my Karate teachers because what I had learned in Taekwon-Do was different even to the point of being the opposite (most of all the power principles).

Of course, I learned very similar principles as well and never studied Taekkyon. These principles are inhert in all martial arts.

Strange then that I never found them in all the styles of Karate-Do I learned from excellent teachers. Boxing is even closer to the kind of Taekwon-Do I learned (sinewave-synchronisation-breath and muscle control) despite the fact that it doesn't apply the leading hip rotation/reaction force pulling/torque/concentrated point of impact that Karate-Do brought to Taekwon-Do (and even that has been done differently for quite some time now).
Again, I can't tell how many times I was corrected in Karate when I did the Tuuuunnnng! instead of the yaaaaaaaahhhh...

Art work

Also, keep in mind that both Yun Byung-in and Hwang Ki claimed to have studiend Chaun Fa in Manchuria.

YOON, Byung In (ChuanFa/Shito-Ryu/Shdokan/Jidokwan/Chang Moo Kwan), YON, Kwai Byeong (ChuanFa/Shito-Ryu/Shdokan/Jidokwan) and CHUN, Sang Sup (Shotokan/ChuanFa/Jidokwan) all had ChuanFa experience accroding to all Kwan founders and seniors. Hwang Ki, like Gen. Choi is doubted by the rest of the Kwan founders and seniors.

'' In order to go back to the source you are assuming that the people of the Ohdokwan, more specificly Gen. Choi, learned Taekkyon. To this date there is not hardcore evidence that Choi ever learned Taekkyon, outside of him stating that he did.''

I agree. However, the similarities are striking. I studied also a number of Karate-Do styles over the years, including Shotokan; none of them ever came close to what I learned in Taekwon-Do as much as what I saw in those Taekyon videos.

'' Why would it be occulted by Japanese influence? Keep in mind that Ohdokwan is Japanase Shotokan. So if anything it wouldn't have been occulted. Japanese would have been the major influence of it.''

Why or how, I don't know. That' why I asked. I can only wonder at the similitude between to arts that so many claim unrelated, when the same people so easily relate Taekwon-Do with Karate-Do where the differences are much more striking.
This is where I disagree. There is no denying that Shotokan Karate-Do is at the roots of Taekwon-Do. Serious historical sources support the fact that Taekwon-Do started out pretty close to what Karate-Do was and still is.
However, the decades of R&D in the Taekwon-Do I have learned has brought it significantly far away from it's original roots as to become definitely something else.
I know first hand because I studied Karate for over 5 years and Shotokan style the most (about 2 years). Even the similar techniques are not done at all the same way because of different principles of power, methods of training and approach to combat. I still have friends in Karate-Do and we always have a keen interest to compare our important differences among the few similitudes we still have.
I also trained in Olympic TKD for 3 years (just as it became Olympic). There indeed I found the same thing as I learned in Karate (techniques, execution, power principles), albeit some very minor differences. On that account I would agree with your assessment. But, as far as I know, the Oh Do Kwan school was not at the roots of Kukkiwon style.
However, I cannot say I am familiar with the old Oh Do Kwan school. General Choi never reffered to his original Oh Do Kwan when he talked of Taekwon-Do in the last 30 years of his life, each time I met him. He called his style Chang Hon (his pen name). That may explain your perception as well as mine: we are not talking about the same style.
Again, I immediately recognized what I have learned in the Taekyon segment, much more than I ever did when studying Karate-Do.
Fact is, I can't count how many times I had to discuss/explain/disagree/shut-my-mouth about this and that technique with my Karate teachers because what I had learned in Taekwon-Do was different even to the point of being the opposite (most of all the power principles).

Of course, I learned very similar principles as well and never studied Taekkyon. These principles are inhert in all martial arts.

Strange then that I never found them in all the styles of Karate-Do I learned from excellent teachers. Boxing is even closer to the kind of Taekwon-Do I learned (sinewave-synchronisation-breath and muscle control) despite the fact that it doesn't apply the leading hip rotation/reaction force pulling/torque/concentrated point of impact that Karate-Do brought to Taekwon-Do (and even that has been done differently for quite some time now).
Again, I can't tell how many times I was corrected in Karate when I did the Tuuuunnnng! instead of the yaaaaaaaahhhh...

I have been fortunate enough to have asked the following Taekwondo men, in person, about Taekkyons influence on Taekwondo:

- no Kwan founders, or seniors were ever students of Taekkyon, or practiced Taekkyon.
- CHOI, Hong Hi never learned Taekkyon, or Shotokan, he learned from NAM, Tae Hi
- Kwan seniors saw Taekkyon kicking, and new of it's kicking legend, and worked to add additional kicking skills to the Karate they learned.

LEE, Yong Bok states that no Taekwondo founders or seniors ever learned Taekkyon, nore included it into Taekwondo, with the exception of a Master LIM from Michigan, who attempted to insert a handfull of elelments of Taekkyon into the Poomsae Koryo #2, however, those elements were incorrect, as Master LIM only trained a few times with SONG and did not have much knowledge of Taekkyon.

Next, I practiced Taekkyon for several years under LEE, Yong Bok and I can tell you from personal experience, that the leg movements in Taekkyon, are in radical contrast to those of Taekwondo. Not very related at all. To give you a sense of it, Taekkyon kick motion is designed not to strike (Kyuk) but to Push (Milgi). Taekkyon is trying for a fast, strong push with all kick skills. Only at High level Dan (yes, modern Taekkyon adopted Dan rank and lower call Poom (like Geup), do students learn about Kyuk or hard strikes.